Graph Unlearning

Min Chen, Zhikun Zhang, Tianhao Wang, M. Backes, Mathias Humbert, Yang Zhang

Main figure for Graph Unlearning

Abstract

Machine unlearning is a process of removing the impact of some training data from the machine learning (ML) models upon receiving removal requests. While straightforward and legitimate, retraining the ML model from scratch incurs a high computational overhead. To address this issue, a number of approximate algorithms have been proposed in the domain of image and text data, among which is the state-of-the-art solution. It randomly partitions the training set into multiple shards and trains a constituent model for each shard. However, directly applying to the graph data can severely damage the graph structural information, and thereby the resulting ML model utility. In this paper, we propose, a novel machine unlearning framework tailored to graph data. Its contributions include two novel graph partition algorithms and a learning-based aggregation method. We conduct extensive experiments on five real-world graph datasets to illustrate the unlearning efficiency and model utility of. It achieves 2.06$ $ (small dataset) to 35.94$ $ (large dataset) unlearning time improvement. On the other hand, achieves up to $62.5\

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 3 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 2 datasets

Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).

Classic

Cora

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports F1; the dataset default is Accuracy. Values below use F1 only.

Sorted by F1. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
ACM-GCN
0.8894 ±0.0054
2
APPNP
0.8880 ±0.0010
3
GraphSAGE
0.8810 ±0.0010
6
GCN
actual #6 vs paper #39 33 places worse
0.8790 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #6 vs paper #39 33 places worse
paper 0.7390 ±0.0030
paper 0.7390 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.1400
11
GAT
actual #11 vs paper #27 16 places worse
0.8670 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #11 vs paper #27 16 places worse
paper 0.8230 ±0.0060
paper 0.8230 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0440
14
GIN
actual #14 vs paper #30 16 places worse
0.8537 ±0.0074
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #30 16 places worse
paper 0.8010 ±0.0180
paper 0.8010 ±0.0180 Δ today 0.0527
15
SAGE
actual #15 vs paper #26 11 places worse
0.8536
best reported
actual #15 vs paper #26 11 places worse
paper 0.8240 ±0.0040
43
MLP
0.6570 ±0.0190
This paper

CiteSeer

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports F1; the dataset default is Accuracy. Values below use F1 only.

Sorted by F1. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
MixHop
0.7800 ±0.0010
2
SGCONV
0.7630 ±0.0020
3
APPNP
0.7540 ±0.0010
4
GraphSAGE
0.7470 ±0.0010
6
GraphEraser-BEKM
0.7460 ±0.0060
This paper
5
GAT
actual #5 vs paper #5
0.7460 ±0.0060
actual #5 vs paper #5
paper 0.7460 ±0.0060

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7460 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0060
7
GCN
actual #7 vs paper #35 28 places worse
0.7420 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #35 28 places worse
paper 0.4930 ±0.0060
paper 0.4930 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.2490
10
GIN
0.7390 ±0.0200
This paper
18
SAGE
0.7160 ±0.0070
This paper
26
GraphEraser-BLPA
0.6760 ±0.0040
This paper
35
MLP
0.5258 ±0.0197
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere